Hi everybody,
> On 23 Feb 2017, at 20:25, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Tim:
>
> Hi!
>
> Given the feedback so far on the list, I think we should roll back the
> updates in preparation for next week’s IESG Telechat.
Currently RFC7730 (TAL format) only allows rsync URIs in there.
In order to allow RRDP in TAL, I think we have to keep the update to RFC7730 in
draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol, namely this part of the draft:
============================================================================
4.3. Updates to RFC7730
4.3.1. Update in Section 2.1, Trust Anchor Locator Format
OLD:
where the URI section is comprised of one of more of the ordered
sequence of:
1.1) an rsync URI [RFC5781],
1.2) a <CRLF> or <LF> line break.
NEW:
where the URI section is comprised of one of more of the ordered
sequence of:
1.1) a URI [RFC3986],
1.2) a <CRLF> or <LF> line break.
4.3.2. Update in Section 2.2, TAL and Trust Anchor Certificate
Considerations
OLD:
Each rsync URI in the TAL MUST reference a single object. It MUST
NOT reference a directory or any other form of collection of
objects.
...
Where the TAL contains two or more rsync URIs, then the same self-
signed CA certificate MUST be found at each referenced location.
NEW:
Each URI in the TAL MUST reference a single object. It MUST NOT
reference a directory or any other form of collection of objects.
...
Where the TAL contains two or more URIs, then the same self-signed
CA certificate MUST be found at each referenced location.
4.3.3. Update in Section 5.1, Normative References
Remove the reference to RFC5781, "The rsync URI Scheme".
Add a reference to RFC3986, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI):
Generic Syntax".
============================================================================
What do you think?
Oleg
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On 2/17/17, 9:56 AM, "sidr on behalf of Alvaro Retana (aretana)"
> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > **Chairs**: Given that this is a significant change, and that the WG may
> > have not been
> > focused on the discussion, and that we now have a little more time given
> > the fact that the
> > IESG review of this document was deferred until Mar/2… Please explicitly
> > ask the WG to
> > review the Updates to RFC6480, RFC6481 and RFC7730. I think that a week of
> > discussion
> > on the list should be enough.
>
>
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
